posted at 12:25 pm on January 28, 2011 by The Right Scoop

I have been waiting for this all week long. It’s so gut wrenching to hear Chris Matthews go on and on about Michele Bachmann, using his platform to deride her in such a condescending way. Well now Glenn Beck has stepped up to the plate to deliver a very impassioned defense (and that’s putting it mildly) of Michele Bachmann, blasting Chris Matthews for being a victim of his own incompetence.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

The only thing I can come up with (along with Beck), is that they are either afraid of her, hate conservatives, or they really don’t like women? What other data points have I missed that Bachmann and Palin share?

there is no problem. ask the question fairly, if you want a real discussion.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Let’s see, Just who gets to decide what is ‘Fair’?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM

There’s no fair way to decide that. In fact, fairness only exists in the laboratories of thought experiments. It’s almost never seen in the real world. Government sometimes tries to create what it considers fairness, but has never in the history of the world succeeded over a long term.

there is no problem. ask the question fairly, if you want a real discussion.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Let’s see, Just who gets to decide what is ‘Fair’?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM

There’s no fair way to decide that. In fact, fairness only exists in the laboratories of thought experiments. It’s almost never seen in the real world. Government sometimes tries to create what it considers fairness, but has never in the history of the world succeeded over a long term.

For an example, ask a deer and a wolf to define fairness.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM

I understand that – we can easily see that this is just a lame way of avoiding the question.

He could of tried the ‘Your being UN-civil route, but with Her/his language, that would be pretty hard to pull off.

This should show people that Leftists can’t stand up to ‘civil’ debate and the reason they have a tendency to repress opposing speech.

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It was a fair question. I reword it: Why do Liberals constantly attack and try to re-interpret these rights as outlined plainly by our Constitution?

Why do Liberals constantly attack and try to re-interpret these rights as outlined plainly by our Constitution?

kingsjester

I don’t know that they do constantly attack the First Amendment or on what grounds. Most of the ones that I’ve known have been quite fond of it.

Some people attack interpretations of the Second Amendment that say that every citizen may bear arms without qualification or limitation of that right by the federal government.
Others do wish to go further and are attacking the right of citizens to own guns. They probably think that the damage caused by guns to outweigh the benefit.
I can’t speak for them and don’t agree.

Let’s see a politician try that in a debate: I refuse to answer that question because it’s unfair.
Chip

sorry, Chip.

see leading questions and the law.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM

First, you said it was ‘presumptuous and untruthful.’

Then you said it was ‘unfair’

Now, it’s a ‘leading question’?

Which is it?, you really need to get you story straight – maybe you should write these important things on your hand to remember them, I’ve tried that and it works – some of the time….

Besides, from you previous comments, we can well guess your position on the first amendment – at least the free-speech part of it. Like the rest of your ilk (excuse me for using that word please) you’re against it.

But that’s okay, we know the left doesn’t like that whole ‘constitutional’ thing anyways (except for the Commerce Clause naturally)

But what about the right to defend yourself, how do you stand on that?

Why do Liberals constantly attack and try to re-interpret these rights as outlined plainly by our Constitution?

kingsjester

I don’t know that they do constantly attack the First Amendment or on what grounds. Most of the ones that I’ve known have been quite fond of it.

Check out how the Left tried to use the Tuscon tragedy.

Some people attack interpretations of the Second Amendment that say that every citizen may bear arms without qualification or limitation of that right by the federal government.
Others do wish to go further and are attacking the right of citizens to own guns. They probably think that the damage caused by guns to outweigh the benefit.
I can’t speak for them and don’t agree.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM

What part of: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Don’t you understand? It says people (not Militia), and it assumes a pre-existing right, what is so difficult about that?

If the framers had meant Militia, they would have written ‘Militia’, BUT THEY DID NOT.

If Chip, or anyone else on here for that matter, wants to have a “real discussion,” neither you nor Grow Fins nor AnninCA would be among those that could participate. Per your own rules of “discussion” that is.

What part of: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Don’t you understand? It says people (not Militia), and it assumes a pre-existing right, what is so difficult about that?

If the framers had meant Militia, they would have written ‘Militia’, BUT THEY DID NOT.

Words mean things.

Chip

chip, try real hard and tell me what it is that I wrote that’s causing you to say that I don’t understand the Second Am.

I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent.

This attitude by Left was exemplified by the aftermath of the Tucson Tragedy – do you remember that?

Yes, he is. After all, he is a Liberal and therefore smarter than every Conservative on this site, put together./

kingsjester

no, I’m not.

and there are some folks around here smarter than myself, even if they don’t agree with my moderate Conservatism.

I would quote more articles, audi, but you would just continue your tap dancing routine.

quote maybe a good one. one that proves that liberals want to end the First Amendment rather than an article that takes a small incident and leaps to an enormous generalization that’s not even evidenced by the incident.
McCarthy was puffing out political blather not serious truth.

You haven’t said a dadgum thing since you appeared on this site that was even moderately Conservative. First, you say you don’t what I was getting at with posting that link, then you tell Chip that the NRO article was crap. Now you claim Conservatism. Got any more bridges to sell us?

Oh, Mccarthy’s article was the worst kind of lying crap. He’s an utter ass and a hack.

That was nothing beyond a smear job written during the last campaign.

How the hell that lying sack of McCarthy can start out saying that the Obama campaign has threatened the country with worse than Sharia Law because of something that the St Louis Sheriff’s Office and other official’s said in response to the lying accusations about Obama’s religion is pure dirty politics.

How the hell you can say that it’s proof on an assault on the First Am is beyond my understanding.

Detroit radio show host Mithch Albom (the sports writer and liberal turd) was talking about this yesterday. He was agreeing with Chris Matthews version of history because (to para-phase) “he has been around a long time and is a student of history”. And that Michele Bachmann is an idiot and needs to read the constitution and learn history before making any statements on the subject.

Yes, he is. After all, he is a Liberal and therefore smarter than every Conservative on this site, put together./

kingsjester

no, I’m not.

and there are some folks around here smarter than myself, even if they don’t agree with my moderate Conservatism.

I would quote more articles, audi, but you would just continue your tap dancing routine.

quote maybe a good one. one that proves that liberals want to end the First Amendment rather than an article that takes a small incident and leaps to an enormous generalization that’s not even evidenced by the incident.
McCarthy was puffing out political blather not serious truth.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Please audiculous, you’re embarrassing yourself. One can easily search back over your postings and disprove that assertion. However, if you want to keep up that ruse, why don’t you tell us all what are your principles as a ‘moderate Conservative’?

Then explain the attempted diminishment of our first amendment rights – the right of free speech after the Tucson tragedy?

Chip

how about you show some diminishment of First Am rights, or general threat against them, before I tryh to explain them.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Okay, see if you can follow along: If you tell people that they cannot use certain words, or they have to tone down the rhetoric (while they impose no-limits on themselves) That has an effect on free speech.

As my dad always said, “Opinions can never be wrong. Facts can be wrong. Not opinions.”

cannonball

so, if someone else has the opinion that you’re dad’s opinion is incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of the thought that opinions may incorrect if they’re assertions of propositions of fact that are incorrect, then it would be your dad’s opinion that the other guy’s opinion isn’t wrong, right?

Certain Democrat Representatives and Senators started talking about and pushing the “Fairness Doctrine” again because of the Tucson shooting. In part because a crackerjack sheriff insinuates (with an “incorrect opinion” I might add) that conservative talk radio and a former Gov. is the cause of said shooting. Not to mention politicians that started pushing for severe gun control legislation.

Nope, no one wants any suppression of free speech or gun rights after Tucson, do they?/sarc

Certain Democrat Representatives and Senators started talking about and pushing the “Fairness Doctrine” again because of the Tucson shooting. In part because a crackerjack sheriff insinuates (with an “incorrect opinion” I might add) that conservative talk radio and a former Gov. is the cause of said shooting. Not to mention politicians that started pushing for severe gun control legislation.

Nope, no one wants any suppression of free speech or gun rights after Tucson, do they?/sarc

Certain Democrat Representatives and Senators started talking about and pushing the “Fairness Doctrine” again because of the Tucson shooting. In part because a crackerjack sheriff insinuates (with an “incorrect opinion” I might add) that conservative talk radio and a former Gov. is the cause of said shooting. Not to mention politicians that started pushing for severe gun control legislation.

Nope, no one wants any suppression of free speech or gun rights after Tucson, do they?/sarc

The Left’s attempt to link the Tucson shootings to angry rhetoric (not theirs, of course) was stage one of a broader strategy–what both military men and political strategists refer to as preparing the battlefield. The movement to feign nonpartisanship at the State of the Union address by seating Republicans and Democrats together is another aspect of this stage. At the same time, the Left is moving on to stage two–an effort to cash in on battlefield preparation by attacking specific figures on the right and trying to shut down speech that the Left finds inconvenient.

But as a ‘moderate Conservative’ you supposedly against that sort thing aren’t you?

1) that people are saying that they want to have stricter regulations regarding guns.

this is not proof that they hate the Second Am, because there are many regulations now in existence concerning guns and they have not been found to be inconsistent with the Second.
more legislation could only stand if it also is not inconsistent with the Second.

2)the other point from roopster is that people are TALKING about the Fairness Doctrine.

Is talking about that a problem for you?
Isn’t the fairness doctrine something that calls for airing of More opinions rather than just one side?

…what I’ve learned is that the framers of the Constitution did more than simply compromise. They did more than just kick the can down the road. They produced a document that one of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson, said succeeded in “laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country,” even though he regretted that “the period is more distant than I could wish.”
- Sarah Palin, America by Heart

DSchoen, sorry D.
I was giving hypothetical opinions as a response to the assertion that there can be no incorrect opinions and not demanding that they are accurate quotations of opinions that Bachmann has offered.

you seem to have truncated my examples to change them. I offered them as conditionals, you quoted them as simple assertions.

you’re cheating, little one and you shouldn’t play unfairly.

you lose that way and you bad children don’t get any of the parting gifts

I’m not sure what to think of Glenn Beck but I do know that I tend to appreciate the information he puts forth (I really lerned a lot from his Soros expose). I apprecaite the way he too takes on the Blood Libeling Hatefilled Left and exposes their lies and deceits.

All you’ve done is tap dance around everyone’s questions to you while calling others idiots and children. As long as you have yourself, you’ll never be alone. Having said that, I leave you to enjoy the pleasure of the company of your biggest fan.